Whether High court at Allahabad will provide the sought information.

   
Registered Post Dated-19.03.2014
To,                                                         
        Registrar (A/C. & Exam)
   Central Public Information Officer
           High court, Allahabad
               Allahabad
An application under subsection 1 of section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005.
                               Short submissions.
Hon’ble Sir-Plese take a glance of order of High Court at Allahabad dated 13.4.2006 in writ no.20121 of 2006 delivered by justice Tarun Agrawala as follows- Apparently , the impugned order dated. 1.2.2006 is against the teeth of the direction given by this court in its judgement dated 16.5.2005 . Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 to 4 will file counter affidavit within three weeks explaining as to what the respondent mean by the words “Sadharan Vetanman”. List immediately thereafter. Sd/-Tarun Agarwala J. 13.4.2006 Respondents-1-Director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad 2-Assistant deputy director secondary education working in the of director of secondary education .Allahabad. 3-D.D.R. Mirzapur.4-DIOS Mirzapur. 5-Committee of management R.I.C. Naugaon ,Mirzapur. Here counter affidavit was submitted on behalf of DIOS Mirzapur on behalf of respondent no.2,3,4. But main accused ie respondent no.1 who superseded the judgement of court still did not abide by the order of High Court. Hon’ble Sir- Even a common man can understand that order passed in the writ no.20121 of year 2006 is against the impugned order dated 1.2.2006 passed by director education Arth Allahabad.
Please take a glance of annexure 1 i.e. order passed by the Hon’ble High court at Allahabad on 13.4.2006 in the writ no.20121 of 2006.
 Please take a glance of annexure 2 i.e. impugned order dated 1.2.2006 passed by the director secondary education.
                                  Sought Information.
Please made available the copy of counter affidavit submitted by Director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad.
If not submitted , how more time will be taken by Director as he is prime accused in the matter who superseded the order of High court.
Prayer-Please made available the sought information within time as prescribed under subsection 1 of section 7 of Right to Information Act 2005. 
Please take glance of annexure 3 as postal order of Rs.500.00 in the favour of Registrar General High court at Allahabad as R.T.I. fee as prescribed under High court R.T.I. rule 2006.
This is humble request to you Hon’ble Sir that aforesaid sought information be made available to
                          Yogi M. P. Singh(Mahesh Pratap Singh)
   S/O Mr. Rajendra Pratap Singh (Petitioner in the aforesaid writ) ,Mohalla-Surekapuram ,Jabalpur Road
District-Mirzapur ,State-Uttar Pradesh , India 

7 comments on Whether High court at Allahabad will provide the sought information.

  1. An application under subsection 1 of section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005.
    Short submissions.
    Hon'ble Sir-Plese take a glance of order of High Court at Allahabad dated 13.4.2006 in writ no.20121 of 2006 delivered by justice Tarun Agrawala as follows- Apparently , the impugned order dated. 1.2.2006 is against the teeth of the direction given by this court in its judgement dated 16.5.2005 . Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 to 4 will file counter affidavit within three weeks explaining as to what the respondent mean by the words "Sadharan Vetanman". List immediately thereafter. Sd/-Tarun Agarwala J. 13.4.2006 Respondents-1-Director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad
    Sought Information.
    Please made available the copy of counter affidavit submitted by Director secondary education Arth-1 Allahabad.
    If not submitted , how more time will be taken by Director as he is prime accused in the matter who superseded the order of High court.
    Please take glance of annexure 3 as postal order of Rs.500.00 in the favour of Registrar General High court at Allahabad as R.T.I. fee as prescribed under High court R.T.I. rule 2006.

  2. Here this question arises that when order of director was against the teeth of High court order i.e. tantamount to contempt of court ,then why counter affidavit was not submitted by Director . This act is against the principal of natural justice.

  3. Here this question arises that whether High court will provide the sought information to anti-corruption crusader. Undoubtedly this information will ensure transparency and accountability in the working of public functionaries but it doesn't seem that whether any public functionary wants to promote transparency and accountability in its function as ipso facto obvious from their acts.

  4. Most surprising is that D.I.O.S. made the bill in accordance with the order of High Court but Director returned the bill with the superseding order and now escaping from submitting the counter affidavit in the High court . Whether it is justified. Why this prime accused didn't submit the counter affidavit when its superseding impugned order was challenged. This is grass injustice with a man who was innocent and subjected to cumbersome process of High court for fourteen years and latter multiple writs were filed in order to get the half of emoluments of salary as order made by High court and still matter is sub judice .Why half of salary was deducted by High court when no wrong was done by employee. Whether justice delivery system is not remained credible. Justice delayed is justice denied.

  5. It seems that convenience charge i.e. bribe for smooth move of file quite common in this system ,was not paid so director had created hindrances . Here is no rule of law and no corrupt public functionary is put behind the bar if he is influential. Dr. Vasudev Dev Yadav who is director of secondary education also the director of basic education. This man has amassed huge wealth and a case has been filed in the high court for C.B.I. inquiry for disproportionate assets but what is being done by High court every one knows. Whether it is justified that one man be directors of two important departments.

  6. This is true fact that here judicial members instead of delivery of judgement only think to show the sympathy in order pacify the aggrieved losing temper from the tyrannical order passed by erring bureaucrat. There must be transparency and accountability in the working of judicial members and delivery of justice must take in time bound manner. Judiciary don't adopt the path to satisfy the parties but it believes in fair justice delivery system. When the impugned order passed by director ,arth-1 Allahabad ,then why this prime accused didn't submit counter affidavit. DIOS Mirzapur had already submitted the bill in accordance with the High court order which was returned back by Director secondary education arth-1 by giving new definition to order of High court. Whether a poor and downtrodden can get justice in such anarchy where credibility of court may have reached at lower most level.

  7. Case Status – Allahabad

    Writ – A / 20121 / 2006 [Mirzapur]

    RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH

    STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

    P.C. CHAUHAN

    C.S.C.

    Service-Writ Petitions Relating To Secondary Education (non Teaching Staff) (single Bench)-Salary And Allowances

    10/04/2006

    06/12/2007 in Court No. 25

    06/05/2014

    This is not an authentic/certified copy of the information regarding status of a case. Authentic/certified information may be obtained under Chapter VIII Rule 30 of Allahabad High Court Rules. Mistake, if any, may be brought to the notice of OSD (Computer).

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: